50,000 Northwest Ohio autoworkers out of a job if Rich Iott were Congressman in 2008

The Toledo Blade
Article published November 14, 2008
Auto industry can't compete with unions
http://www.toledoblade.com/article/20081114/OPINION03/811140330
Presidential candidate Barack Obama denounced corporate bailouts with great indignation as helping out the "Fat Cats." He said corporations needed to be responsible for what they do. Now, the "Chosen One" is urging President Bush to move quickly to bail out the struggling American auto industry. Why the change of heart? It is spelled UAW. It is all about Mr. Obama's financial and constituent base; it has nothing to do with what is good for America.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to fail? They can never be competitive in the world market as long as they are saddled with wages and benefits that are nearly double those of their international competitors. They are burdened with supporting union retirement funds and medical plans that are over-inflated and noncompetitive. Failure would break the yoke of union domination. That would be the best thing that could happen to the American auto industry.

We do not "need" an "American" auto industry. It is a world market. Isolationism is gone forever. The Japanese, Germans, English - even the Koreans - are building cars equal to or better than ours. If the auto industry is given the chance to start over, it will if it can do it competitively. It will never be competitive while shackled by the UAW. I am certainly not a proponent of a "new world order," but studies show that countries that have significant trade relations generally do not get into wars with each other. The bigger the world market and the more trade interdependence that exists, the better it is for world relations. The concept of "Buy American" makes about as much sense as not buying Michigan products because you are an Ohio State fan.

Where is Mr. Obama taking us?

Rich Iott

Monclova Township

Rich Iott on Bailouts
http://voteiott.com/issues/
The government bailouts are a corruption of our free market system, and a waste of taxpayer money. There is no getting around this core fact – there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to bail out any industry. Whenever you allow the federal government to pick the winners and the losers in an industry, you have a corrupt system. Washington invented the idea of “Too Big to Fail,” and we’ve been picking up the tab since. In many ways, Washington created our housing, banking and automotive crises in the first place, and compounded their mistakes with the bailouts. The bailouts are a raid on our – empty – federal treasury that must stop.
_____________________________________________________

I'd say that says it all! Marcy Kaptur supported the 50,000 auto workers here in Northwest Ohio Iott does not. GM and Chrysler are making progress towards a full recovery and paying back the loans. If Iott had his way the unemployment rate would be 25%+. He's stated he'd make the hard choices, his choices, not fearing being reelected. Rogue unaccountable Congressman. http://www.wgte.org/wgte/item.asp?item_id=7201
~WOLFMAN~

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

It does say it all. I hope more people read it and understand just how right Iott is. Kaptur okayed the spending of billions of taxpayer dollars in a company that will now be sold off to investors all over the world including China. The notion of an American car company dies slowly, but Kaptur helped it along for at least the time being. What's the next industry too big to fail that Kaptur will vote to bail out?

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

And if John McCain would have come back to Washington D.C. in September of 2008 after he suspended his campaign and railed against the bailout of Wall Street and banks due to their own arrogance and incompetence, he'd be President of the United States right now.

Iott was right.

We should never have bailed out Wall Street- the American people were dead set against it but big money special interest groups wanted it.

We should never have bailed out Big Labor- the American people were against it but big money special interest groups wanted that, too.

We should never have passed a pork-filled stimulus package written by the worst Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader in recent memory.

We should never have mortgaged my children's and my grandchildren's future by allowing special interest groups to feed at the trough of taxpayer money. Because our so-called leaders kow-towed to big money special interest groups, we are running not only a trillion dollar debt but now a trillion dollar deficit. That is the heighth of irresponsibility.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

«We should never have bailed out Wall Street- the American people were dead set against it but big money special interest groups wanted it.»

You might want to FACT CHECK that again. Whatever the American people said at the time, the majority of those who voted for the Wall Street Bailout (the bank bailout or TARP or other such names) were re-elected when they sought re-election. So we only told them that we approved.

We should have known that we were risking this sort of injustice, when we allowed them to authorize the Long-Term Capital Management bailout in 1998. That set the stage for direct US government support of the private banking environment. After that time, Wall Street went on a speculation binge using 30-to-1 leverage on even the most foolish of financing (i.e. things like energy futures in California and things like subprime mortgages in the poor heartland). In fact, after that time, the nation's finance industry has slouched and shuddered from one bubble after another, with the losses rising hugely in each iteration.

We have a bailout economy now, and it's destroying the empire faster than any terrorist attack. Unless people seriously start voting Libertarian, then the nation is literally and honestly assuredly finished. Since people are too brainwashed to vote against the Democrats and Republicans, then it IS over, and you should make your escape plans appropriately.

My point was if McCain had come out against it, he would have given political cover to those who weren't comfortable with the bailout (Obama was solidly for it) and maybe it wouldn't have passed in the first place. And McCain would have been right in line with the sentiment of the American people.

Political Championship Wrestling- putting politics in proper perspective by presenting it as pro wrestling.

Coming in January, a political satire about the sorry state of American Politics- Jesusland vs. Progressiveville.

Why count on McCain in that fashion? He was one of the "Keating Five" and as such, unable to resist supporting the elite bankers over you and myself.

And why would Republicans have waited for a Presidential candidate to indicate the direction of a political policy? Don't they think for themselves, in the tradition of individual responsibility?

Read it and weep, Wolfboy.

Under Democrat sMarmy Kaptur, Ohio lost 255,000 jobs JUST IN 2009. Not counting the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost SINCE 2008 under Democrat "leadership" like Kaptur and Strickland. Even after giving Italian owned Crystler and Government Motors taxpayer money. Even after trillions of dollars in so-called "stimulus" pork.

Ohio's 2009 job losses revised up
Saturday, March 27, 2010 2:51 AM
By Bill Bush

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

As bad as Ohio looked when monthly job-loss numbers were released throughout 2009, the reality was even worse.

Ohio lost more than 70,000 more jobs than initially estimated by the state Department of Job and Family Services, according to revisions made this month. The revisions increased the toll by 38 percent......

....From December 2008 to December 2009, more than 255,000 Ohio jobs disappeared, according to revised, seasonally adjusted numbers. The state now has a bit fewer than 5 million jobs

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2010/03/27/ohios-2...

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Where is Reagan and the two Bushes in this equation LCBM ? The reason Ohio is down is manufacturing left the country. Why? Goofy trade agreements promoted by Bush senior and junior. Clinton too was one of them. Marcy seen this, she did not vote for these job killing trade agreements. She does not vote the party line. You can't paint her with that brush.

Now the worn out Republicans are trying the same worn out tricks that they did in the 1990s "Contract with America" the womanizer Newt Gingrich's baby. Well the clown thinks we forgot how that worked out and has endorsed "The Pledge" what a joke only a fool forgets his history.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Just when I think I can no longer be appalled by the stupidity of Libtard morons like yourself, you vomit up ANOTHER f*¢king stupid a$$ lie. What a shameless whore for the Democratic party you are.
HERE is the truth that mindless MORONS like yourself have allowed yourself to be brainwashed into ignoring.

The mouth breather asswipe boldfaced lie "Goofy trade agreements promoted by Bush senior and junior."
Now for the truth that bitchboy will ignore, once again proving 'You can lead a lib to knowledge but you can't make the retard smart'

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- China should be allowed to join the World Trade Organization because "this agreement is a good deal for America," President Bill Clinton said in a statement Monday.
Naming a White House lobbying team to spearhead the effort, the president also called on Congress to schedule a vote on China's entry to the world trade body at "the earliest possible time." The United States and China reached agreement last November on terms for China to enter the WTO.
Clinton assigned Secretary of Commerce William Daley and Stephen Ricchetti, the White House deputy chief of staff, to "ensure that we have as strong and responsive an effort as possible in both parties in Congress." "
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/10/clinton.china/

103rd Congress
1993-94
President: Clinton
NAFTA
North American Free Trade Agreement — Passed 61-38.
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/voting.htm
http://www.historycentral.com/Documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html

Democrats controlled Congress when Congress passed NAFTA. Those Democrats who voted FOR NAFTA:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...
Bumpers (D-AR)
Pryor (D-AR)
DeConcini (D-AZ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Biden (D-DE)
Graham (D-FL)
Nunn (D-GA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Simon (D-IL)
Breaux (D-LA)
Johnston (D-LA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Mitchell (D-ME)
Baucus (D-MT)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boren (D-OK)
Pell (D-RI)
Daschle (D-SD)
Mathews (D-TN)
Robb (D-VA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Murray (D-WA)

Now, Bitchboy, NAME ANY "Goofy trade agreements" SIGNED INTO LAW by Bush senior and junior.

OH YEA! DON'T LOOK NOW BITCHBOY WHORE FOR THE DNC. YOUR LORD AND MASTER IS SCREWING YOU OVER JUST LIKE BUBBA CLINTON AND DEMS IN CONGRESS HAVE FOR YEARS..

Obama Reviving Bush Free Trade Agreements<./b>
July 26, 2010
The Obama Administration has begun to push more aggressively to revive the Free Trade agenda of the Bush and Clinton Administrations, initiating negotiations for a new Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with nations bordering the Pacific Ocean and saying it will push for a vote on three pending FTAs negotiated by the Bush Administration, including Colombia. The Administration is expected to press first for a vote on an FTA with South Korea, possibly in a lame-duck session following the November elections. In statements in early July, President Obama also pledged to move forward the pending agreements with Colombia and Panama, while noting that various issues still needed to be addressed with all three agreements.

http://www.usleap.org/obama-reviving-bush-free-trade-agreements

"The head of a group of House Democrats opposed to free trade needled President Barack Obama for pushing ahead on such an agreement with South Korea.
Rep. Mike Michaud (D-Maine), the head of the House Trade Working Group, condemned the free trade agreement Obama said this past weekend he would push lawmakers to pursue this year."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/105971-key-dem-chides-o...

Obama Backs Free Trade Agreements
Joseph Bonney | Jul 7, 2010 9:02PM GMT

Promises to urge Congress to ratify pacts with Panama, Colombia
President Obama said he will push to renegotiate a pair of stalled free trade agreements with Panama and Colombia and will urge Congress to ratify them...
...The president said last month that he intended to make a new push for a free trade agreement with South Korea.
http://www.joc.com/government-regulation/obama-backs-free-trade-agreements

BOHICA you Dems! Your owners are about to sell your jobs overseas again.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

"Now, Bitchboy, NAME ANY "Goofy trade agreements" SIGNED INTO LAW by Bush senior and junior."

Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement
US-Bahrain Free Trade Agreement
US-Oman Free Trade Agreement
US-Jordan Free Trade Agreement
US-Morocco Free Trade Agreement
US-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
US-Thailand Free Trade Agreement
United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement
Andean Trade Preference Act

However, the US-Israel Free Trade Agreement was not signed into law by either W or his father. Reagan signed that one. He also signed the predecessor to NAFTA.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

When Was NAFTA Started?:
NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992. It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_History.htm

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

All that proves is that both parties are garbage,,,,,we already knew that.
Term limits, the longer they're in office the better they get at being crooked.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Remember back in 1992 when Bill Clinton held a campaign stop in the Jeep Plant? Remember right behind 49 building. Remember Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur on her knees pleating with Bill Clinton not to pass NAFTA? She apposed the agreement because of it job losing affect to her district and the Country. She voted against Republicans AND Democrats who voted for NAFTA. The rest is history and she could say I told you so but she won't and the right wing will distort the truth for political gain.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Ask any businessman what he wants, now. The honest ones will answer: "Some of that sweet bailout money." The dishonest ones will give you a patriotic song and dance but that's what they are actually thinking.

The bailouts were evil and they destroyed the U.S. economy as thoroughly as any foreign attack. They turned businessmen into socialist whores.

Remember when the USA insisted that the USSR's centrally-run economy was the epitome of evil and stupidity? Why then are we doing the same sort of central planning?

The answer is that it benefits the wealthy controllers who illegally rule us. The corporations are in deceitful charge of the political process and you all are only allowing it to happen. That's why you're going to lose no matter which R or D you vote for. The entire game is rigged, which is why Kaptur doesn't even care, and why Iott so freely lies. No matter who wins or loses, the creditor class will win and the debtor class will lose.

And if you have to ask, then you're solidly in the debtor class.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.